Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.github.bdentech

chieflab_redraft

USE WHEN the user says 'make this more casual' / 'shorter' / 'less salesy' / 'add a specific number' / 'redraft this' about a published draft. Pulls the existing brief for the actionId, merges the instruction, returns an updated brief your LLM should render. After rendering call chieflab_record_rendered_copy({ assetId, body }) to commit. Multi-turn flow stays coherent: each redraft increments action.metadata.revision; original brief preserved in metadata.history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional. If your LLM already rendered the redrafted body, pass it here and ChiefLab updates the action's brief directly.
actionIdYesThe publishAction.id from chiefmo_launch_product.
instructionYesPlain-English instruction. 'shorter', 'more casual', 'add the $40 number from our pricing page', etc.
workspaceIdNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: it increments action.metadata.revision, preserves the original brief in metadata.history, and requires the agent to render and commit. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but the core side effects are well described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the trigger conditions. It follows a logical flow: when to use, what happens, what to do next, and multi-turn behavior. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers the tool's workflow: pulling the brief, merging instructions, returning the updated brief, and the required follow-up commit. It also explains revision handling for multi-turn coherence. Even without an output schema, the agent knows what to expect and what to do next.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the description is not required to fully compensate, but it also doesn't add much beyond the schema. It clarifies that actionId refers to the publishAction.id and that instruction is plain-English, but these are already in the schema. The optional 'body' parameter is explained in both places. No value is added for workspaceId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('redraft') and resource ('published draft'), and distinguishes it from siblings by listing specific trigger phrases. It explicitly says what it does: pulls the existing brief, merges the instruction, and returns an updated brief.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description starts with 'USE WHEN' and gives concrete examples of user requests that should trigger this tool. It also instructs the agent to call chieflab_record_rendered_copy after rendering, providing a clear usage flow and implied exclusions for non-redraft tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ChiefLab toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple launch and measurement tools), and the presence of aliases like chiefmo_* can confuse an agent. While descriptions are detailed, the sheer number of tools covering similar workflow steps makes it hard to distinguish the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

All public tools start with 'chieflab_' and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., chieflab_approve_action, chieflab_set_company_profile). However, some internal names like 'chiefmo_*' appear as aliases, which slightly breaks consistency from the user's perspective.

Tool Count1/5

45 tools is excessive for a single MCP server. While the domain is broad, this many tools likely overwhelms agents and users. Most well-scoped servers have 3-15 tools; 45 indicates poor scoping and should be split into focused sub-servers.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extremely comprehensive, covering the full lifecycle from signup and installation to launch, approval, execution, measurement, next-move suggestions, manual fallback, and specialist delegation. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of growth and distribution.

Resources